INQUEST's briefing on the death of Shiji Lapite

UNITED CAMPAIGNS FOR JUSTICEDeath in Police CustodyReport onthe death of Shiji Lapite1994Published by INQUEST89 – 93 Fonthill Road, London, N4 3JHPhone: 020 7263 1111 Fax: 020 7561 0799inquest@inquest.org.uk www.inquest.org.uk

Death in Police Custody – Report on the death of Shiji LapiteShiji Lapite died on 16 th December 1994 after being stopped by police officers for ‘acting suspiciously’. The cause of death wasasphyxia from compression of the neck consistent with the application of a neckhold. At the inquest officers admitted kicking MrLapite in the head, biting him and placing him in a neckhold. Pathologists evidence and post mortem reports revealed bruising andabrasions to his body, that he had suffered 36 to 45 separate injuries and that his larynx and neck were bruised and a cartilage in hisvoicebox fractured. Police officers could not explain the disparity in injuries received by Mr Lapite and themselves. The inquest juryreturned a unanimous verdict of ‘unlawful killing’. No criminal or disciplinary charges were brought against the officers involved. Hisdeath highlights the failure to learn the lessons from previous deaths.The inquestThe inquest was the first opportunity the family had to find out the circumstances of Shiji Lapite’s death. It was also the first occasionon which the two officers involved in the events leading up to the death have answered questions about their actions, since theydeclined to answer any questions when interviewed under caution in the course of the police investigation.In their evidence PC Wright admitted applying the fatal neckhold to the deceased and biting him in the chest. PC McCullum admittedkicking the deceased twice on the head as hard as he could. Both officers sought to justify their actions as the use of no more thanreasonable force to subdue a violent prisoner. In particular, both officers maintained that Mr Lapite had tried to strangle PC Wrightand had used such a degree of force that PC Wright was in fear of his life.During medical examinations conducted shortly afterwards, neither officer was found to have sustained significant injury. Ofparticular significance was the absence of marks or reddening to PC Wright’s neck. In his evidence at the inquest Dr Rouse (whohad examined PC Wright) expressed the opinion that the absence of such marks was inconsistent with and drew very serious doubtupon the officers’ account.The undisputed medical evidence of the consultant forensic pathologists who gave evidence at the inquest was that the sole orprimary cause of death was physical pressure applied by way of a neckhold to the front of the neck. The neckhold had been appliedwith sufficient force to fracture the thyroid cartilage in the voicebox (or the bones of the larynx) and to suffocate Mr Lapite until hedied. The subordinate injuries to the neck were consistent with death by strangulation.Dr Rouse, (the pathologist instructed by the Coroner) identified 36 separate areas of injury to the deceased’s body. Dr West(instructed on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner) identified 45 such areas of injury. These included injuries consistentwith a kick to the head, and a bite mark to the deceased’s chest. The evidence of the pathologists was not challenged, either onbehalf of the individual officers, or on behalf of the Commissioner.VerdictAt the conclusion of the inquest the learned Coroner directed the jury that a verdict of unlawful killing could be returned only if theywere satisfied so that they were sure that the criminal offence of manslaughter had been committed. He directed them that theyshould not return a verdict of unlawful killing unless they were sure that the degree of force used was plainly more than was calledfor in the circumstances as the officers believed them to be. Neither the individual police officers nor the Metropolitan PoliceCommissioner challenged the directions given by the learned Coroner, either at the time or subsequently by way of judicial review.The inquest jury returned a unanimous verdict of unlawful killing demonstrating that they did not believe the police version of eventsbut believed that the force used on Shiji Lapite was unlawful, unreasonable and excessive.Director of public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints AuthorityIn the light of the jury’s verdict, the learned Coroner referred the case to the Director Of Public Prosecutions to consider aprosecution for manslaughter against the two officers involved in the death. On 9 th August 1997 the CPS announced their decisionnot to prosecute the officers involved in the case, a decision that defied, not only the inquest jury’s verdict but also the evidenceitself. Predictably that decision was followed by the decision of the Police Complaints Authority announced on 2 nd December 1996that no disciplinary charges would be brought against the officers. Both decisions were successfully challenged by Judicial Review inthe High Court in July 1997, though once again the CPS decided not to press charges in June 1998. A further Judicial Review of thedecision by the PCA not to consider charges against those responsible for training and public safety within the Metropolitan Police isalso pending.Deaths in custody resulting from the use of neckholds and the failure to act© INQUEST 2000. Please credit INQUEST when using this material for purposes of quotation.2

Death in Police Custody – Report on the death of Shiji LapiteMr Lapite’s death was the latest in a series of deaths resulting from the use of neckholds. At the Lapite inquest, the two pathologistsDr. West and Dr Rouse gave evidence that the application of such neckholds as a method of restraining suspects was lifethreatening and could cause death within a very short time. Dr West referred to a substantial body of expert opinion to this effect,and confirmed that this evidence had been brought to the attention of senior police management, at both the national and local level.in particular the fatal dangers inherent in this method of restraint had been identified, long before Mr Lapite’s death, by both theHome Office Policy Advisory Body on Forensic Pathology (which advises on policing maters) , the Police Complaints Authority, andthe Association Of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). The PCA had described the risk of death resulting from such holds as“unacceptably high.”In its Annual Report for 1993 the PCA issued a warning on the use of neckholds; following the publication of the report the secretaryto the ACPO Personnel and Training Committee wrote to all Chief Constables including the Metropolitan Commissioner on the 31 stMarch 1994.Despite the existence of the body of knowledge, it emerged in evidence at the inquest that the officers involved in this case hadreceived no specific training or warning concerning the use of neckholds. Indeed it emerged that no such training had been given toany Metropolitan Police officer. The recommendation by the PCA that all officers should receive appropriate warnings had not beenacted upon, not withstanding the fact that it had been drawn to the attention of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It was clearthat those responsible for training and public safety within the Metropolitan Police had failed to heed and act upon warnings aboutthe unacceptably high risks of fatal injury resulting from the use of neckholds.Although a new training manual had been under consideration for some time, it was still not complete by the date of the inquest.Following the inquest and in direct consequence of Mr Lapite’s death, the Metropolitan Police approved an amendment to the OfficerTraining Package. This involved amendments to the training manual in July 1996. As an interim measure they issued the followingguidance:“Officers should be aware that:- neck restraints are not included within any of the modules of police defensive tactics training;- the use of such methods to restrain offenders who are attacking or violently resisting officers is not encouraged;and- there are inherent dangers in the use of any neck restraint.There is a risk of grave injury or fatality to the offender. Officers must be made aware of this and consider it, should theyuse such methods. This is not to say that the use of neck restraints is unlawful. As with any use of force, the question tobe considered is:“WAS IT REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES?”Following the announcement by the Crown Prosecution Service of their decision not to prosecute the two officers for the second timeon 4 th June 1998, Deborah Coles, Co-director of INQUEST said:“(This) decision once again brings the entire criminal justice system and the role of the Crown Prosecution Service intodisrepute. At a time when the public is being told that there will be major improvements in the prosecution of serious Crimethe CPS have failed to demonstrate that deaths in police custody are taken seriously and that police officers will be subjectto the full force of the law.“In spite of the inquest jury decision that Shiji Lapite died as a direct result of the unlawful and excessive violence usedagainst him by police officers nobody is to be held criminally responsible or indeed accountable for this appalling death.“The glaring lack of accountability at all stages in the investigative and disciplinary process which denies bereaved familiesjustice, sends a clear message that these deaths do not matter and that police crime will never be subject to the full forceof the law.© INQUEST 2000. Please credit INQUEST when using this material for purposes of quotation.3